Akash Goyal vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Akash Goyal, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 216 dated 29.09.2023, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Division No. 8, District Jalandhar. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and Isha Goyal cheated the complainant, Lalit Mittal, of Rs. 71,68,902/- by assuring supply of material and issuing security cheques from a closed account. The petitioner argued that the FIR was filed to settle a financial dispute, that dealings between the firms existed since 2004 without prior dispute, and that his firm had cleared all amounts. He also contended that the case was based on documentary evidence with no recovery and was wrongly given a criminal colour. The State, represented by the counsel for the complainant, opposed the bail, stating the petitioner was the principal accused, played an active role by issuing cheques from a closed account and stopping payment on another, and had also cheated the GST Department. They asserted the net amount due was Rs. 71,68,902/-, and the petitioner wrongly claimed payment and GST benefits.

Held

The Court held that the petition for pre-arrest bail was liable to be dismissed. The Court noted that financial transactions between the parties had occurred, and the petitioner had handed over a cheque for Rs. 71,68,902/- in discharge of liability, but the account from which it was drawn had been closed. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner was involved in another FIR (No. 217 dated 20.09.2023) under similar sections for cheating a complainant of a huge amount. The Court found that the petitioner had not only cheated the complainant but also the GST Department. Consequently, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The ratio decidendi is that pre-arrest bail may be denied when there is evidence of significant financial fraud, including cheating of government departments and involvement in multiple criminal cases of a similar nature, necessitating custodial interrogation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in FIR No. 216 dated 29.09.2023, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C., considering the nature of the dispute and the evidence presented? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the allegations were unsubstantiated and aimed at resolving a financial dispute. He argued that long-standing business dealings between the parties, with no prior disputes, indicated a civil nature of the transaction. He further submitted that the case relied solely on documentary evidence, with no recovery effected, and that the criminal colour was illegally given to a rendition of accounts. He also pointed to statements of account showing clearance of dues. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner was the principal accused who actively cheated the complainant by issuing cheques from a closed account and stopping payment on another. They highlighted that the petitioner had also defrauded the GST Department and that the amount of Rs. 71,68,902/- was due. They asserted that the petitioner's claim of payment and GST benefits was false and that the matter was not merely a rendition of accounts.